VEDIC PLUPERFECT = INTRANSITIVE IMPERFECT? (TRANSITIVITY AND TENSE IN RIGVEDA)

Lecnid I. Kulikov Research Ass i starit

Institute of Oriental Studies USSR, 103031 Moscow, Rozhdestvenka, 12

O. Introduction. There exist a strict dependency between tense stems

and sets of personal endings in Vedic Sanskrit. There are three principal ("primary") verbal stems associated with three rrain tense systems: PRESENT, PERFECT, and AORIST. The first one includes present proper, imperfect and present injUnctive. The term present being ambiguous, I use below capital letters (PRESENT) for referring to the present system (including present proper, imperfect, and injUnctive) on the whole. The following rules govern the derivation of main tense forms:

(a) present = present stem + so-called primary ending, . cf. tan 'stretch' - tan6-ti 'stretches';

(b) imperfect = augment + present stem + so-called secondary ending, cf. tan - a-tano-t 'stretched';

(c) present injunctive = present stem + secondary ending, cf. tan - tano-t;!

(d) perfegt - perfect stem + perfect ending, cf. tan­tatan-a 'has stretched'.

There are, however, some enigrratic forms derived from perfect stems by means of secondary endings and henceforth Violating the rules (a-d) - the so-called pluperfect and perfect injunctive:

(e) pluperfect - augment + perfect stem + secondary ending, cf. drh' be/make firm' - a-dadrh-anta 'became firm'; 0 0

Cf) perfect injunctive = perfect stem + secondary ending, cf. tan - tatan-anta.

The pOSition and function of this forms in the verbal system is not clear, although they seem to be similar to the imperfect forms in their tense meaning.

In the present paper I will try to explain the rise of suoh anomalous forms as pluperfect; I will demonstrate that at least one of the reasons for creating such forms may be related to syntactic properties of several tense forms. Thus, a brief digression to the problem of relationship between tense

446

and syntax of Vedic verbal forms is needed.

1. Transitivit¥ and tense in Rigveda 1.1. Data he relationship between syntactic

characteristics and tense properties is one of the least investigated problems of RVic verbal systen Some scholars noticed several irregularities in syntax of certain tense forms such as intransitivity of perfect forms as opposed to for~ belonging to the PRESENT system CL. Renou, 2. J. Haudry). The question under consideration was touched upon by S.Jarnison (1983: 160-168) who demonstrated that for some Vedic verbs transitive-causative on -aya- is opposed tq a perfect and not to PRESENT i ntrans i t i ve counterpart, cf.: c it: cetayati 'rrakes perceive' - ciketa 'has BP,peared, appears' ; di( p): dTpayati' rrakes shi ne' - dTdaya 'has shone> etc. It may be shown that this correlation (PRESENT: transitive VS. perfect: intransitive) is attested not only for -aya-causatives but also for some primary present stems. Below 1. gi ve an approximate rate for three RVic verbs; for- · each verb number of occurrences of perfect and PRESENT forms in intransitive and transitive constructions is indicated:

tan 'stretch> r 'go, . send> randh 'be/rrake subject'

pf pr pf pr pf pr

itr A> 40 ~ 10 6 ~ 10 1 -

tr :» 15 ~30 1 ~ 70 .- ~ 25

Cf. for instance the following examples demonstrating syntactic use of the verb tan:

(1) agne ... .brMt tatantha. bhBOOna Agni:VOC high stretc~PF ray: INSTR

'0 Agni, you have stretched high with your ray' f.J. CRV VI. 16. 21)

(2) ratrT vasas tanute night: NOM clothes:ACC stretch: PR

'the night spreads [her] clothes' (RV 1.115.4)

The phenomenon described above may be referred to as "split causativity", by analogy with split ergativity:1j

(R) Perfect f'oras are mstly intransitive while their ~ counterparts are transitive-causative.

Of course, there exist some exceptions from this rule, cf. the transitive use of perfect tatana:

447

( 3) sat yatp tlItana sITryo truth:ACC stretc~PF Sun:NOM

<the Sun has stretched the truth' (RV 1.105.12) However, such occurrences are rruch rrore rare, as it

may be seen from the tables above" It should be errphasized that not all the verbs but

only a rather delimited class7Qfverbs (although well-attested in RV) obeys the split causativity rule (R); besides, even the verbs belonging to this class may violate it.

An exhaustive investigation of this problem does not exist as yet. Unfortunately, I cannot touch upon it in this paper in a rrore detailed way, so I confine myself to the above data

1.2. TypoI~ical explanation. The correla:ion described above may seem to be

rather strange: it is not clear why perfect forms are not qUite syntactically similar to PRESENT ones being rrostly intransitive. Nevertheless, recent typological studies throw light on this question. As it was· been derronstrated by Hopper and Thonpson (1980), Tsunoda (1981) and othe,r typologists there exist various correlations between transitivity and other features of a sentence, such as tense and aspect of verbs, volitionality, definiteness of noUn phrases, etc. In particular, stativity (as opposed to punctuality, activity) is one of the intransitivity features (Hopper, Thonpson 1980: 266ff.). Taking into account that stativity is one of the irrportant properties of perfect in Vedic (and in old Indo-European dialects at all; cf. Neu 1983), we may treat syntactic properties of perfect in the framework of Hopper-Thorrpson theory. Thus, it seems qUite natural that perfect forms of certain verbs are rrost commonly intransitive. One may assume that language of RV conserves some rests of a rrore archaic system which existed in some (unattested) Indo-European dialects. .

2. "S¥l it causat i vi t.r system and its development. 2.1. t is diflicu t to imagine a language with a

strict split causativity (namely, perfect forms are always intransitive, etc.), however, even a verbal system containing some elements of split causativity cannot be quite stable.s Really, several cOrrDinations of syntactiC and tense properties «perfect & transitive-causative', 'PRESENT & intransitive') can not be expressed in this system, so the verbal paradigm is defect i ve:

'PF' 'PR'

intransitive

transitive

Table 1 (Here and below the notation [PF] or [PR]· refers. to perfect or PRESENT forms respectively, ' 'whereas the notation '·PF'I'PR' refers to perfect or PRESENT meaning. Crossed squares denote gaps in the paradigm)'

The follOWing ways of elimination of such gaps may be used:

(i-ii) One of the oppositions may be eliminated: 'intransitive -transitive (table 2) or 'perfect -PRESENT' (table 3):

, PF' 'PR' 'PF/PR'

itr I tr [PF] [PR] itr [PF]

tr [PR]

Table 2 Table 3

The first way seems the rOOst probable: the tense system on the whole remains while correlations with transitiVity disappear. This is the case of Late Vedic and Post-Vedic Sanskrit. .

The second way is also poSSible: formal distinctions between tense forms remain, however their basic function is transformated: perfect markers become markers of intransitivity{ while PRESENT ones indicate transitiVity (causativity/. Only some traces of such development may be observed in Early Vedic. This way of evolution could be one of the reasons of the "erosion" of boundaries between different tenses noticed by many grammarians (cf. for instance Whitney 1955 on present use of perfect). It may be expected that such "erosion" phenomena are proper to verbs obeying the rule (R) and henceforth shoWing paradigmatiC gaps to be fi lIed (1 ike 'PRESENT & intranSitive'). Perfect forms with present meaning of such verbs could serve as intranSitive counterparts of transitive PRESENTS, etc. Really, present use of perfect forms is espeCially well attested for the verb cit (Grassmann 1976: Sp.448) Cited above as an evidence for split causativity. Cf.:

(4) sa ciketa s8.hiyasa . this appear:PF stronger: INSTR

449.

agnf S ci tn§1)8 k8r1'TC1Q8 Agni:NOM bright action:INSTR

<thiS Agni manifests himself with stron~er, bright action' (RV VIII.39.5)

( i i i) Both OPPOSitions remain whereas paradigmatic gaps are filled by new forms ([x], [y]) derived on the base of eXisting ones (table 4). One may assume

< PF' < PR'

intransitive [PF] [x]

transitive [ y] [PR]

Table .4 that these formations must be "hybrid" to some extent combining several elements of both perfect and present formations. Below I focus just on this opportunity because it is the rrost irrportant for my study.

3. Rise of ~luperfect. How the neworms mentioned above can be derived?

I derronstrated in the preceding sections that there existed a correlation between tense and transitivity. In particular, perfect was asSOCiated with intransitivity,so we can expect that some elements 'of perfect forms could be reinterpreted as markers of intransitivity. For instance, we may assume that perfect stem becomes to some extent a "bearer" of intranSitive meaning. This is not strange if we take into account a very close relation between stem types and syntax of forms derived from these stems in old Indo-European dialects. S Henceforth, "hybrid" forms derived from a perfect stem by means of endings proper to PRESENT system could retain present or imperfect meaning while being syntactically intransitive. PI uperfect ( - augment + perfect stem + secondary ending) and perfect injUnctive ( - perfect stem + secondary ending) are just such hybrid forms, so we may expect that at least one of the functions of these formations can be forrulated as < intransitive iJlll)erf'eat' (resp. <injUnctive'). The meaning of pluperfects was investigated by P.Thieme in his rronograph "Das Plusquamperfektum im Veda" (1929) where he stated that these formations are used in the SaIre way as imperfect (Thieme 1929: 4). Below I quote some RVic passages (partially borrowed from Thi.fme 1929) containing pluperfect (or perfect injunctive):

450

tan 'stretch, spread' - tatananta: (5) cihani vi SvB tatananta kr~tayah

days:ACC all spread:PF. INJ tribes:~OM 'in all the days the tribes spred' (RV 1.52.11) Here the pluperfect form is used in the SaJOO way

(i.e. intransitively) as the major part of perfect forms (cf. ( 2) ) as opposed to present forms used most commonly in trans~tive-causative constructiorts, cf.: (6) tantum a tanvate '" kavaYaQ

thread:ACC stretch:PR poets: NOM • the poets spread the thread' · (RV I. 159. 4)

cit 'appear; perceive' - cikito: I

(7) tVBtp soma pra cikito manl~ you Soma: vac appear: PF. IN] intellect: INSTR

(RV X. 51. 3) 'You, 0 Soma, manifest yourself through intellect'

(Thieme 1929: 46) Cf. transitive usage of non-perfect forms: (8) tM i ndro arthaJp cetati

then Indra:NOM goal:ACC perceive:PR 'then Indra perceives the goal' (RV 1.10.2)

(9) rraM arQal) sarasvatT great stream: ACC Sarasvat i: NOM

pra cetayati ketuna illuminate: PR banner: INSTR

'Sarasvati illuminates the great stream with her banner' (RV 1.3.12)

dT 'shine' - MidelJ: , I

(10) tvM bhiY~ Vlsa ayann 8.siknTr you fear: INSTR races: NOM come: IMPF dark

vaisvanara pUr~ve soSucBhab Vaishvanara: VOO Puru: OAT gleam: PRTC ptiro -yoo agne darayann MTde/J castles: ACC when Agni: vac crush: PRTC shine: PPF

'For fear of you dark races went away, when you, 0 Vaishvanara, ~leaming for Puru, crushing [their] castles, shone (RV VII.5.3)

(Thieme 1929: 37) The passage above demonstrates that pluperfects (MTdeQ) are similar to irrperfects (~ann) as to their tense meaning.

tVi~ 'stirr up; shine' - atitvi~ta: (11) sBm acyante Vrjanaititvi~ta vat

gird oneself belt shine:PPF when '[Maruts] gird themselves with a belt after haVing

shone' (RV V.54.12)

451

Cf. intransitive perfect for~ (12) ... ti tvi se 5aVO

stirr·up:PF force:ACC 'the force have stirred up' (RV 1.52.6)

(Thieme 1929: 46)

drh 'be I make firm' (13)Oyaded anta

when limits: NOM 'when the first limits

- Bdadrhanta: / Bdadrhanta pUrva become f i r~ PPF first became firm ... ' (RV X. 82.1)

(Thieme 1929: 47) The passages cited above clearly demonstrate that

pluperfects may be used just as intransitive imperfectsl injUnctives henceforth confirming the hypothesis on the function of pluperfects formulated above.

It is interesting to note that P. Thieme, although not formulating the rule (R) in an explicit way, uses it sometimes while reinterpreting some passages. For i nstance, Thieme translates s~me perfect and pluperfect forms derived from the root Pl 'swell' otherwise than Geldner. The passage RV IV. 16.21 (14) i ndra . . . f $Bl[I jaritre

Indra:VOC sacrificial food praiser:DAT nadyo na pipeb rivers:NOM like swell

is read by Thieme as follows: "0 Indra, ' megest du dem Stinger Labung ' strotzen (a non-causative interpretation - L. K. ), wie die Flli8e (Labung strotzen)" (Thieme 1929: 40) ; otherwise Geldner: " ... megest du nun dem Stinger Spe i se anschwe llen lassen (causati ve' - L. K.) ... " As we can see, the accusati ve i f?CWl is interpreted as accusative of result, ResultatsakkusatiV (or accusative of content? for a discussion, see Jamison 1983: 28-30). Most scholars make a difference between a result/content accusative and a normal direct object as in the causative constructiqn below: (15) pinvatam fIa ... no

swell: PR. IMPV. 2. DU cows:ACC our 'make our cows swell' (RV 1.148.2)

Thus, such interpretation allows Thieme to treat the form pTpeb as intransitive, hencefort.h aVOiding a violation of the prinCiple (R).

One more example is worth mentioning. While analYSing the form rireca (as in the passage RV IV.16.6 ap6 r{reca 'he set free the waters'), Thieme (1929: 42) treats it. as a new (f) facti t i ve perfect bUi It as a counterpart t.o present ri nBkti ' sets free' ; the exist.ence of an old intransitive (hencefort.h, corresponding to the rule (R)) perfect is conSidered by Thieme to be very probable.

452

Finally, some forms are treated by Thieme as pluperfects without any comments although an aorist treatment is allowed as well. E.g., atitvi~anta (cf. (11» may be considered (at least from the formal pOint of view) both as a pluperfect (so Thieme) and as a reduplicated (causative) aorist; however, the second option is excluded because of its intransitive reading.

It seems to me that the observations above allow to "reconstruct" to some extent Thieme's adherence to the rule (R). Although he did not formulate this regularity anywhere, he used it for translating some passages (IV.16.21, VII.23.4) and for characterizing some forms .

Now we can also easily account for such anomalous forms as presenuderived from perfect stemslike cit -ciMtati (perfect stem ciket-) 'appears'. It is qUite natural that such forms may be used as intransitive presents and fi 11 one more of the parad i gmati c gaps.

4. Split causativity and the rise of reduplicated aorist.

One more observation is to be added to the above data which may be well accounted for in the framework of the split causativity hypothesis. As is well known, one of the seven Old Indian aorist types, reduplicated aorist (aorist 3) with causative meaning (like jan 'be born' - ajijanat 'gave birth', pat 'fall' - apTpatat 'made fall', etc.) is more recent by origin than others. Originally, there was no aorist type associated wi th causati ve meaning, The sources of this formations were investigated by M Leumann (1962) who demonstrated that this type was borrowed from the PRESENT system: the reduplicated imperfect (a form belonging to the "third present class") was reinterpreted as an aorist. ThiS fact is easy to account for if we remember that the transi ti ve-causati ve meaning was to some extent asSOCiated with the PRESENT system on the whole; henceforth, it is qUite natural that a causative gap in the aorist system was filled by a form belonging to the PRESENT system.

5. Some anomalous perfect forms may be accounted for in a simi Iar way.

5. 1. yuyopi ma: (16) acitU yat tava dhBrJ'l13 yuyopima

infatuation: INSTR if your laws:ACC erase:PF 'if we have Violated (lit. erased) your rules because

of [our] infatuation ... ' (RV VII. 89. 5) This form is irregular: the root yup 'erase, be erased' is presented by full grade instead of weak one

453

(*YUYUPimB). The perfect forms derived from this root (cf. yuy6pa 'is erased' ) are expected to be roost comroonly intransitive, so a causative perfect must have a special marker of transitivity. As it was been assumed by S.Jamison (1983: 165), the original perfeot stem (yuyup-) mi ght be rearranged under the i nfl uence of the -aya-causati ve (yopayati) re lated to the PRESENT system.

5. 2. j i j i nvathJi), pi pi nvathJl). Both forms appear in one and the same Rigvedic hymn 1.112: (17) bhJjyU~ ... jijinvathJQ

Bhujyu:ACC make alive:PF 'you have made alive Bhujyu ... ' (RV 1.112.6)

. , I

(18) y§bhT rasam k§6dasodnBl; pi pi nvathlr which Rasa:'ACC stream-water make swell: PF \

'by means of which [forces] you have fi lIed Rasa with the water of the stream' (RV 1.112.12).

These forms are also irregular being derived not directly from the root (ji 'be active, alive; animate'; pf 'swell') but containing pre~ent stem affix -nv­(-n6-/-nu-) often used for deriVing causative nasal presents (cf. pr 'swell' - pfnvati 'makes ,swell, fattens', r 'go; send' - rQ6ti, rnvati 'seoos').

All the three anomalous perfect forms mentioned above share a oommon feature: they oontain some elements of PRESENT forms. The problem is that for a causative reading a special marker is needed. Being derived according to common roorphological rules C.yuyupi m9, • pi pyathJl), * j i iyathJo), they could be interpreted as intransitive. Therefore they are derived from present stems (yop[ayaJ, jinv-, pinv-) and not directly from roots. Thus, this case is rather similar to those discussed in the preceding sections: causative markers missing in the aorist / perfect system are borrowed from the PRESENT system.

6. ConclUSion. The formations discussed in the sections 3-5 were

traditionally treated as Violating some rules operating m1beVedic verbal system (cf. (a-d) in the section 0). 1 tried to deroonstrate that these irregularities may be accounted for as traces of another system rules formulated in section 2 and referred to as split causativity. Forms like Bdadrhanta, ciketati, yuyopim9, etc. could be built in order to fill paradigmatic gaps (cf. table 1) as follows:

454

'present' , ' imperfect' , perfect'

intransitive ciketati; pluperfect [perfectJ

transitive [present, imperfect] yuyopimS, j i j i nvathlb. pipinvathll')

It should be emphasized that this table rep!ea~nta only one of the POSSible ways of filling gaps; other ways ( cf. for instance transitive use of perfect form;) are mentioned in the section 2.

Of course, I do not claim that 'intransitive imperfect' is the only function of pluperfect and the only reason for creating this formation; it is qUi te possible that there existed some additional nuances of meaning distinguishing pluperfect from imperfect. I do not claim also that all the pluperfect formations can appear onl! in intransitive constructions -counter-examp es are easy to find. The purpose of the present paper is much more 1 i mi ted: I would 1 i ke t o demonstrate that syntactic properties of the perfect stem may be at least one of the "raisons d'etre" of pluperfect.

Thus, such anomal i es as pI uperfect (and some others) may be accounted for as results of interaction between two groups of rules, i. e. morphological rules (as described in the section 0) and split causativity (R) as a princ iple determining correlation between tense and transitivity.

NOTES 1. The injunctive meaning is very difficult to

determine; these formations may be used both as present and imperfect form;. For details, see Hoffmann 1967.

2. Renou 1925: 144 ff. 3. Cf.: "On constate une predominance nette des

formes du parfai t dans le modtHe 2 (= "etendre" - L. K. ), . alors que le modele 2 (- "s' etendre" - L. K.) se rencontre surtout avec le present tan6ti, tanute; cette observation suggere une situation connue, celle d'un verbe d'etat dit "intransitif" tatan- "s'etendre" en face de son causatif tanu- "etendre" " (Haudry 1977: 312) .

4. As in Hindi-Urdu languages where an ergative perfective and preterite non-ergative counterpart is

and some other Incio- Aryan construction is limited to environments whereas i t s

proper to imperfective or

455

non-preterite environments (see Oixon . 1979: 93ff.; Hopper, Thompson 1980: 271ff.).

5. For a preliminary typological study of the split causativity, see Kulikov 1990.

6. Some scholars, although not studying this problem in detail, have noticed these correlations, as for instance . P.Chantraine (1927: 135): "la valeur transitive vs. intransitive d'une forme est souvent commandee par la structure du theme plutot que par la qual i te des des i nences".

7. Here and below I use the term pluperfect both for pluperfect properly speaking and for perfect in junctive (i.e.for unaugmented pluperfect).

8. The both forms may also be treated as derived from quasi-roots jinv-, pinv-; nevertheless, the connection of these (quasi-)roots with the PRESENT system is also obvious.

ACC OAT IMPF IN] INSTR -itr NOM PF PPF PR PRTC RV tr VOC

ABBREV IAT IONS accusative dative imperfect injUnctive instrumental intransitive nominative perfect pluperfect present participle Rigveda transitive vocative

REFERENCES

Chantraine, P. (1927) 'Les aoristes athematiques a voyelle longue en grec ancien.' Mea Soc. Ling. de Paris t.23, fasc.2, 135 - 140.

Oi xon, R.M W. (1979) 'Ergativity: Language Vo155, No 1, 59 - 138.

Grassmann, H. (1976) WOrterbuch zua Rig--Veda. 5. Aufl. Harrassowi tz.

Haudry, ] . ( 1977) L' elllPloi des cas en vedique: Introduction it r etude des cas en indo-europeen L' Hermes.

Hoffmann, K. (1967) Der Injunktiv i. Veda. Winter. Hopper, P. and S. Thompson (1980) 'Transitivity in

grammar and discourse.' Language Vol 56, No 2, 251 - 299.

466

jamtson, S. W. (1983) Function am fmw in the -aycrfonations of the Rig Veda am Atharva Veda. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. v

Kulikov, L. 1. (1990) 'K tipologii rass'eplennoj kauzativnosti' [On the typology of split causativityJ Vsesojuznaja kcnferencija po lingvisti6eskoj tipologi i t-bscow, 91 - 93.

Leumann, ~ (1962) 'Der altindische kausative Aorist aj i ~.;: Indological studies in honor of W. Brown. American Oriental Soc., 152 - 159.

Neu, E. (1983) 'Oas frtihindogermanische Oiathesen­syste~ Funktion und Geschichte.' ara..atische Kategorien. Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogel'llallischen Gesell.scbaft. Reichert, 275 - 295.

Renou, L. (1925) La valeur do parf'ait dans les h~ Wdiques. edouard Champ ion.

Thieme, P. (1929) Das Plusquuperfektua ill Veda. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Tsunoda, T. (1981) 'Split case-marking in verb-types and tense 1 aspect 1 mood.' Linguistics Vol 19, No 5/6, 389 - 438.

Whitney, W.O. (1955) Sanskrit Grallllar. 2th ed. Harvard University Press.